The Committee met at 7:30 p.m. in the Colonial Building.

Pursuant to Standing Order 87, Mr. Roger Fitzgerald, MHA, Bonavista South substitutes for Mr. Nick Careen, MHA for Placentia, or Mr. Glenn Tobin, MHA for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. CHAIRMAN (Gilbert): There are several matters that we'll straighten away first and then we'll get on with the meeting.

I welcome Roger Fitzgerald, who is replacing either Mr. Careen or Mr. Tobin tonight as the other member of the Committee.

I will tell you what we have tried to do so far in conducting the meetings. There are three hours, as you know, allotted for this. We normally start at 7:00 p.m. but because of other commitments today we couldn't start until 7:30. By about twenty-five past ten I'll be asking the Committee whether they think we can pass the Social Service estimate tonight. If we can clue up then in a few minutes, if not, it will be adjourned to be clued up at some other time. I hope that we can get it done in the three hours. We've been reasonably successful so far with the committees that we've had.

What happens is usually I will ask the Committee to introduce themselves in a minute or so, and then I'll ask the minister to introduce his staff, his officials. He has the right to speak for fifteen minutes and give his opening remarks. Who will be responding? Ms. Verge, will it be you again tonight?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So Ms. Verge will be responding for the Official Opposition. She has the right to have fifteen minutes. After that I will recognize speakers as they hold up their hands or whatever they do. They will then speak for ten minutes. They have a right to speak for the ten minutes, but if they do the minister won't answer any questions, because they're making a statement for ten minutes. However, if they want to have a give and take with the minister, a question period, in that ten minutes they have the right to do that.

I will now ask the Committee to introduce themselves. Ms. Verge?

MS. VERGE: Lynn Verge, MHA, Humber East.

MR. FITZGERALD: Roger Fitzgerald, MHA, Bonavista South.

MR. HARRIS: Jack Harris, MHA, St. John's East.

MR. LANGDON: Oliver Langdon, MHA, Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. SMITH: Gerald Smith, MHA, Port au Port.

MS. YOUNG: Kay Young, MHA, Terra Nova.

MR. CHAIRMAN: David Gilbert, MHA, Burgeo - Bay d'Espoir.

Mr. Minister, we'll ask you to introduce your officials and make your opening remarks if you would, sir.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. To my immediate right is Mr. Bruce Peckford, who's the Deputy Minister of Social Services. I think most people would know Mr. Peckford. I'll go right along here. Next to him is James Strong. James is the Director of Finance. Next to him, the next two gentlemen are ADMs: Mr. Noel Browne, who's the ADM in Client and Community Services, and Mr. George Skinner who's the ADM for Program Development. Here on my left is David Roberts, and he's the ADM for Finance and General Operations.

I want to thank these people for coming here this evening. They're going to be my main support and back up. That's for the facts. Anything outside the facts I'll take care of them. The facts will go with these people. I don't plan, Mr. Chairman, to give a fifteen minutes dissertation. As far as I'm concerned, I'll give that to the Committee. We can go right to whoever the next speaker is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize Ms. Verge I would point out, Mr. Minister, that if your officials are going to speak, for the sake of the people who are recording and who are going to have to type this eventually, I'd ask the officials to introduce themselves before they speak. It would make it easier for them.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I'd like to congratulate the minister on his appointment as a Minister of Social Services. I have fond memories. I've been around for a long time - not quite as long as the minister - but I have memories of being in this Chamber for estimates committees meetings when the tables were reversed. The minister, then an Opposition critic, waxed eloquently about what was wrong with the education system. It's good for me to have the opportunity now to give some of my views on what's wrong with the social services system.

I'd like to start by asking the minister to comment on what's provided in the Budget estimates for social assistance. It's $20 million less than what was actually spent last year. I don't have the page open at that head. Oh yes, it's head 5.3.02 on page 328. What was actually spent last year was $180 million, roughly, and I stand to be corrected. It is a lower amount this year - $175 million, social assistance.

I would like the minister to explain how conceivably the department will be able to get by with a lower amount for social assistance this year when the budget document, in the early pages, in the Table of Economic Indicators, and the Budget Speech, do not offer any real hope that the economy is going to improve significantly.

Last year social services had to get extra funding beyond what was provided in the budget for social assistance. I recall a special warrant around December, so how does the minister think that the department will be able to get by with a lower amount for social assistance this year compared to what was spent last year?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, has the member finished?

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: I thought the member said, when she started off, that social services was $20 million less? Did she mean that under -

MS. VERGE: I said that I stood corrected when I opened the estimates document to the correct head.

Just to clarify, looking at Page 328, 5.3.02, Social Assistance.

MR. LUSH: Yes, 5.3.02, I have it.

MS. VERGE: I am reading, what was actually spent last year was $180 million, and what is estimated to be spent this year is $175 million. Given the gloomy economic indicators, how can the department expect to get by with spending less on social assistance this year compared to what was spent last year?

MR. LUSH: Okay. The member knows quite well that the amount budgeted for last year was $160 million, and we have budgeted $14.5 million more than what was budgeted for last year.

We have made some budgetary arrangements whereby we think we can cope with this problem should a problem arise. For example, this figure of $174,500,000 reflects a reduction in the transportation budget and $2 million for funding of refugees, compared to the 1992-'93 revised amounts, as well as $3.5 million related to the hiring of ten temporary investigator positions. So these reductions are offset by the additional funding related to the - and increased growth in caseloads is another situation, but very basically these three budgetary measures that I pointed out to the minister - the $1 million reduction in transportation, $2 million for the refugees, and the $3.5 million that we are expecting to save with respect to the temporary investigator positions.

MS. VERGE: Last year, as the minister pointed out, the government estimated spending $20 million less than what it ended up spending. That is where I got the $20 million, and I believe the year before the government was low in its budget projection as well.

The social assistance caseload has climbed steadily for the last four years, and according to the figures the minister tabled in the House of Assembly for April of 1993, we are now up to a caseload of about 32,000; 68,000 individuals. The trend has been steadily up for just about four years. It has not levelled off. Does the minister expect that the caseload will continue to climb, or does he think that it will level off?

MR. LUSH: Well again, in the projections you have to take some figure and in this particular case the department took an average, for the coming year, of $30,700. That is the average on which the budget was determined and as the member rightly said, that works out to about 68,000 individuals. So, that is the basis on which the calculations were made, on an average of $30,700.

MS. VERGE: How does that average compare to the actual average of last year?

MR. LUSH: The average of last year was $30,100.

MS. VERGE: So, you're basing the estimated spending this year on a slightly higher caseload?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Now, I would like to address the three savings measures, how will you cut $1 million from transportation?

MR. LUSH: You have not heard about it?

MS. VERGE: I have heard some complaints but I have not heard details.

MR. LUSH: I am surprised you have not heard about it, I have. This is the -

MS. VERGE: The minister's car allowance?

MR. LUSH: One million on the amount allowed for clients taking taxis, this kind of thing, the amount allowed clients for taxi transportation this kind of thing. We have tried to get close to $1 million reduction in that particular vote.

MS. VERGE: How are clients supposed to get around now?

MR. LUSH: Use a cab but we are hoping that our people in our regional offices can be creative and come up with some system whereby people can still use the taxi but hon. members will realize that if there is one area in which there has been abuse in the past with respect to social services, it has been this area of taxis.

MS. VERGE: It sounds like you are double counting abuse because you are saying that you are going to cut $3.5 million because the investigators will -

MR. LUSH: This is an area where we know that with some economy some prudence and some frugality that maybe we can achieve the $1 million savings.

MS. VERGE: Now, the $3.5 million that you are counting on, will that come about through lessening what is approved?

MR. LUSH: Will that come - I am sorry?

MS. VERGE: Will the $3.5 million savings that you are estimating because of the welfare cops, the investigators, will that come about as a result of lowering or lessening what is approved or will it come about as a result of recovery of overpayments?

MR. LUSH: No, to my mind, it will come about through people receiving money who are not permitted to receive money or cases of fraud. This is what it seems to be but now maybe the officials may want to make a comment here because I am sure they are more familiar with this than I am, on this particular one with respect to the investigators. So, Mr. Peckford?

MR. PECKFORD: We have, during the past year, had two or three investigators working in a couple of locations in the Province. The results of their activities in identifying areas where clients are in receipt of funds or misunderstand the arrangements and has resulted in us being able to project that we may be able to achieve this sort of a saving were the same efforts applied across the Province.

MS. VERGE: Yes, okay.

MR. PECKFORD: So, this would be a combination of recoveries but more like an avoidance -

MS. VERGE: Okay, thank you, yes.

MR. PECKFORD: - of assistance.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The total number has been climbing steadily, has the composition of the caseload altered significantly? I do not know how many general categories you have but I can think of people who are unable to work because of illness or a disability, I can think of single parents, I can think of young single able bodied people and I am hearing more and more from them.

Have the percentages of the different categories stayed about the same, is it just that the total has grown larger? The deputy is nodding, yes.

A significant part of your caseload has always been single parents and as the minister knows, I took strong exception to the decision the Wells government made back in October of 1990, to categorize child support and maintenance as non-allowable income. I feel that removed totally any incentive on the part of a social assistance recipient who is a single parent to try to get an absent parent to contribute to child support. Now I realize social services coerces recipients to go to court and get an order, but you cannot make people be persuasive or try for a higher amount and in my view, this reward system is wrong. I think we have to find ways in our social security systems, provincial or federal, to have positive reward systems.

The only reason that I strongly objected to it is that, it took away money from the poorest families in the Province and it is the children of course who are suffering. Most of the people affected and affected negatively are children. The amount of money involved for the government is a pittance but for the families affected, it is significant. When the income is allowable, the family is only able to benefit up to $115 a month, now $115 a month means very little to the people in this room because of what we are all earning, but when you are a single mother with three children on social assistance, it can mean 20 per cent of your cash income that you have to manage to get your groceries and pay your utility bills and get clothing and outfit your kids for school. While this minister was not in the Cabinet at the time, that decision was made without any warning to the families affected, and it was imposed at the start of the school year, which was the worst possible time for the families affected, but I realize that is history, but, will the government not change that decision to reinstate the incentive for social assistance recipients to get maintenance?

MR. CHAIRMAN: At that point, Ms. Verge, your time is up.

Mr. Harris.

MS. VERGE: By leave, could we have the minister's response?

MR. HARRIS: Not if it cuts into my time.

MS. VERGE: No it would not cut into your time.

MR. HARRIS: I have no problem; I do not know about the rest of the members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave, Mr. Minister, you have two minutes.

MR. LUSH: To address that: because there were some other questions about the composition of the caseload but I will not get into that, I will get into the one about maintenance.

I feel as strongly as the member does with respect to people having all of the assistance that they can get, and in this particular situation sometimes we are dealing with some very, very desperate cases, but on the other side of the coin, I believe that anybody who has kids, brings kids into this world, have a responsibility to pay for them, have a responsibility to pay for their upkeep, and I wish there was some system where we could do both. I am not familiar enough with this but my officials might now and if somebody was having difficulty getting their maintenance income from the spouse, then this certainly should be paid and I hope that it is.

Now, my understanding is that, there was some consideration or there has been some difficulty with this ever since the Canada System Plan in 1966, which requires that any extra income federally, go against people's income and I think you and I are in that same boat or anybody who gets income, whatever it is, has to go against your income, so if somebody is on workers' comp. or old age pension, or whatever it is, and they receive other income it is added to that. Now in this particular case we are talking about people on low income but I am just wondering if we allow this to happen, whether or not we are just allowing people to get away with their irresponsibility? As I have said, since 1966, we have been working on this and there are two events, as I understand it, that has helped in this tremendously, and that was the establishment of the Unified Family Court and the Support Enforcement Agency which the hon. member should know about. I know she knows about both, but certainly the Support Enforcement Agency. One is in Corner Brook, is it not?

MS. VERGE: Yes, the Support Enforcement Agency.

MR. LUSH: I understand that the recipients declaring income since the Unified Family Court and particularly the Support Enforcement Agency has gone up dramatically. I think we all feel that spouses should have some responsibility to people that they have brought into this world and that they should be making some contribution. If there was some indication to me that these people could not get their maintenance income, if it becomes a hardship because they are not getting it, then I would be prepared to look into it, but if the system is there and they can pay their maintenance income I believe that aspect should be followed and people should have to pay their maintenance income.

MS. VERGE: I will come back to that in my next turn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

I would also like to congratulate the minister on his appointment as Minister of Social Services. It is a very large but very vital department to far too many people in this Province. I know the minister has only been in charge of this department for a brief period of time but I understand that the minister is a very quick study and can pick up these things very quickly so I look forward to seeing some changes in his department, and with the compassion that I know the minister personally has I hope he is able to convince his government to join him in doing some things.

I want to talk about one thing that I think the minister can do. I will not say without costing any money because I am sure your friends to your left or right sitting with you there will tell you that it might cost some money. The Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook right now, the agency that handles most of the activity in getting this maintenance money from individuals, almost entirely men I should imagine who have been ordered by either the Unified Family Court or other courts to pay maintenance to their spouses for the support of their children. They collect this money and they pay it directly to the spouses. If these individuals are on social assistance and let's say there is an order in place for $200 that Joe has to pay Jane for the support of little Susie, that $200 comes directly to Jane from the Support Enforcement Agency if they get it. If Jane has a social assistance allowance of say $450, from that $450 is deducted $200 and Jane is given $250 from Social Assistance and she has to wait and hope that the other $200 comes from the Support Enforcement Agency. If it does not come on the first of the month and she runs out of money, if she has no money to buy groceries, perhaps, she has $200 less than what she would expect to have, she cannot get access to that money until a much later time in the month, I think it is about three weeks. They will not give it to her. She is waiting for her cheque but she cannot get her cheque and she knows perhaps that her former spouse or whoever this individual is who is required to pay maintenance has either quit his job, left the Province, was not working, or whatever, and for whatever reason she knows that the Support Enforcement Agency is not going to get this.

The question that has often come to mind is if there is some doubt as to whether this money is going to come why can this individual, instead of having to wait for the cheque to come from Support Enforcement, if it does not come on the day it is scheduled to come, why does not Social Services provide the income with that money on the basis of an assignment from the Support Enforcement Agency?

It can be quite easily done. I don't know if this is actually in keeping with the protection of privacy act, but I understand that your social workers have access to the same computer bank that tells you whether or not these individuals have gotten orders through the Support Enforcement Agency in Corner Brook. That the knowledge base is there. That the ability to get an assignment from an individual can be done at the same time that a cheque is issued. Surely a system can be put in place so that the individuals who are dependent on this income as part of - and it's being taken out of their social assistance cheque - why can't they be administratively - I don't mean guaranteed in a real sense - but administratively guaranteed that money, and not have to wait and hope that it might or might not come in and do without the expectation of that money for two or three weeks until it finally becomes clear to Social Services that the money is not coming?

Now that's an elaborate question but I think it sets out the situation that many people find themselves in. You hear this complaint again and again. That someone has no money, they can't do this, and they phone our offices. They try to get us to intervene and do something. We keep getting told: that's our policy, to wait until the middle of the month or the eighteenth of the month to see if it comes, and then and only then will we issue a cheque to cover the difference. Is the minister aware of that problem?

MR. LUSH: Yes, and in other area too, with respect to payment other than maintenance. Mr. Peckford tells me that your problem's been addressed. It's an important one. I find the same thing. I'm sure all members have found this with respect to, oh, it might be UI. People are applying for UI and they get delayed, this kind of thing. The department sees that.

MR. HARRIS: This is an institutional one. This is institutionalized delay though -

MR. LUSH: Yes, yes.

MR. HARRIS: - that happens on a (inaudible) basis.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Peckford tells me that we're doing a pilot. Maybe you can describe that, Mr. Peckford.

MR. PECKFORD: At the present time the Department of Social Services, together with the Department of Justice, is looking into the question that you've posed and which we are very much aware of. In particular, looking at it from not just the aspect of when there's a delay in the forwarding of the maintenance payment, but the other legal, procedural and administrative barriers associated with the whole maintenance and social assistance interface.

We have a small pilot project here in St. John's right now which is monitoring the situation whereby we will include the maintenance amount as part of the cheque to the client, and then recover from the other spouse afterwards. That side of it is one aspect of the total project. There are other areas related to the legal side and other procedural and administrative simplifications being sought to make this work a little bit better.

MR. HARRIS: The Support Enforcement Agency seems to be getting a bit better in dealing with these. For a long time you used to constantly hear problems - people not being able to reach them and things like that. But now this is not your department, so there seems to be some administrative improvements in that system. Perhaps it was because of having it set up in the first place and getting so many people onto it.

You say it's a pilot project. Is that intended to bring about administrative change for the whole of people affected by that? Is that the plan if it works?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes. At the present time the pilot project is speaking specifically to the situation that spouses who have a legal right to maintenance payments. It's looking at all aspects of that system and the interface between the Justice system and the Social Services system. Once the pilot is completed and an evaluation is done then a decision will be taken as to how it will expand and in what way.

MR. HARRIS: There have been some very forward-looking policy directions in other provinces - I don't know whether any have actually been implemented - to treat maintenance payments, to have the Crown actually pay that money and then to convert it into a debt to the Crown and have the Crown go and collect it. Not just for social assistance recipients, but for others. Is that part of what you're looking at in this particular case?

MR. PECKFORD: I am not quite sure if we are looking at it in the sense that you have described it, where it would be considered a debt to the Crown. To be perfectly honest with you I am not right current on the status of the project right now in that level of detail but we are looking at, as I indicated, all the administrative and legal barriers or impediments that are there which make the whole question of maintenance difficult for the individuals who have a right to it and difficult for departments like ours and Justice, to administer. So, we are trying to simplify the whole thing.

MR. HARRIS: The question that I have, the more you talk about it the more I see it as a broader policy initiative by your department. Now, what I am proposing and suggesting is something far more specific and deals merely with one agency in Corner Brook that has all the administrative capacity, the data, the computer links with your department, a simple form which would allow an individual - if Jane came in and said: look I did not get my cheque from Corner Brook. You could check and see whether it had been sent. If the answer is no, it has not been sent, she signs a form saying I hereby assign any payments received this month by Support Enforcement Agency to Social Services. She signs that, you click it into your computer and the money does not go to Jane, it goes to you. I am oversimplifying I am sure but that is what I am suggesting as a simple way of solving this problem that keeps coming up again and again and causes hardship to individual single parents who find themselves in this difficulty. Can that be done?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris your time has expired. I do not know if you have leave to carry on.

MR. HARRIS: The question is, can that be done as a one quick fix to one problem?

MR. LUSH: I think the member said that this was being done in other jurisdictions. My first response is, if it is being done in other jurisdictions than I cannot see why we cannot do it but that does not mean that that is the kind of approach that we are beginning to take on this and Mr. Peckford is not certain. So, all I can say is that we will take a look at it but I think any suggestion that makes this system work in a more adequate manner is certainly worth looking at. I would be prepared to take a look at that to see what others are doing because if it is a problem we want to get it ironed out and no question that this has been a problem over the years. Whether it is as big now as it was two years ago or three years ago, I am not prepared to say but it is something I am prepared to look at.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I would like to continue the discussion on the same issue. There are basically two aspects, the one that I raised which is, when an absent parent is paying maintenance on time, the social assistance recipient is no better off. The second aspect raised by Mr. Harris, is the inevitability of delays in the payments which means that the social assistance recipients, a single mother and children, are actually worst off than if there was no court order for maintenance. The minister talked about parental duty but the harsh reality is that when parents split very, very, very few absent parents pay voluntarily.

In this Province, until the law was reformed and the Department of Justice Support Enforcement Agency set up, which happened in the Spring of 1989, very few court orders for child support were ever enforced. Basically court orders for child support were not worth the paper they were written on. It was just to hard to enforce them. With the law reform, suddenly court orders for maintenance meant something. The social assistance regulations which were then in place provided for income from a job and income from maintenance under court orders similarly being treated as allowable income and presumably the theory was that social assistance recipients should have an incentive to help themselves.

There should be a reward for a social assistance recipient earning a bit of money from a job. Now, if John and Jane with baby daughter Susie are all altogether in the one household on social assistance and John gets a part-time job and earns a bit of money, then and now, that family will be better off. They will be able to keep up to $115 a month of John's earnings. If John splits and takes off with somebody else the department will require Jane to go to court to look for an order for child support. Now, she will have to do that but she will be worse off when she gets that order. First of all because every dollar that the Support Enforcement Agency gets from John and relays to her will be subtracted dollar for dollar. John, inevitably will miss some of his payment dates and then Jane and Susie will not even be able to count on the meager social assistance allotment for groceries and all their other living needs.

Jane is worse off now than before the Support Enforcement Agency was set up, which I find really sad. That is not one of the results that the previous government anticipated when we set up the Support Enforcement Agency. It turns out that people like Jane and Susie, who are the poorest people receiving child support, are actually hurt by the Support Enforcement Agency, so I would like to ask the minister if he would not consider once again making child support and maintenance allowable income and giving people an incentive? You allow John, Jane, and Susie to be a little better off if they are together and John has a part-time job, why will you not allow Jane and Susie, after they have been deserted, to benefit from anything that John pays under a court order?

MR. LUSH: First of all, I am concerned, as I said, as the minister if it is not working. I do not know if the member is saying that we should allow spouses, to use the vernacular, to get off scot-free. They have no responsibility. They can just walk out on people and go away from a situation. I do not know how we can allow that kind of a situation.

MS. VERGE: I do not think you are understanding me.

MR. LUSH: The person is only worse off if she is not getting the maintenance income. It seems to me that if the person is getting the maintenance income I cannot see how they are worse off than under the original situation.

MS. VERGE: First of all if John pays on time faithfully, religiously, Jane and Susie end up with exactly the same as they would otherwise be entitled to in social assistance, but if John is like most judgement debtors he is going to miss a few payments, or he will be late occasionally, and during all those gaps Jane and Susie will suffer.

MR. LUSH: We have no internal measurements for gaps and things like that?

AN HON. MEMBER: We do.

MS. VERGE: But they do not work instantly and Jane is still left waiting. What I am trying to get across is that there is no incentive. When Jane goes to court now she goes because the social worker makes her go. There is no reason for her to ask for $100 a month. The lower the payment the judge orders the better off she will be and the better off John will be. There is no incentive for -

MR. LUSH: You mentioned the social worker (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I have talked to legal aid lawyers about this.

MR. LUSH: But she has a legal right to this money, you know.

MS. VERGE: But it is going to be subtracted in full from her social assistance. Now if it were allowable income then there would be an incentive for her to get a higher amount from the court.

I have talked to legal aid lawyers about this, and what they tell me -

MR. LUSH: But these are matters - I am sorry.

MS. VERGE: - and I have talked to the staff at the Support Enforcement Agency about it. If you talk to them over a drink, privately, they will say: This is nuts. There is no incentive anymore for people to even try (inaudible).

MR. LUSH: You agree they should pay though?

MS. VERGE: I do not think the minister is understanding what I am saying.

MR. LUSH: Yes I am, but I want to make sure that these people are made responsible and they should be paying. I think what the hon. member is suggesting is that -

MS. VERGE: Well I think they should be paying too. That is why, as Minister of Justice, I helped reform the law. People are people, there are certain fundamental human characteristics, and one of them is that men who leave their wives do not pay maintenance unless they are made to pay, and women who are left on welfare, basically, once they figure out the system, will learn that the lower the court orders the better off they will be.

People respond to the reward systems inherent in government programs, and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are pretty shrewd at figuring them out.

MR. LUSH: I think that aspect of it, Mr. Peckford, is something that will be addressed by the pilot?

MS. VERGE: How will that be addressed by the pilot?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Peckford.

MR. PECKFORD: The pilot project is looking at all aspects of the interface between social assistance and maintenance. It is looking at the forms, the documentation, the effort that an individual has to go through in securing a maintenance order, and the administrative aspects as well - the pilot will include providing, in the first instance, the maintenance amount to the spouse who has custody of the child. Then the Crown will recover the maintenance from the absent spouse. That is what the pilot is looking at.

MS. VERGE: Do you have assisting you, designing the pilot and monitoring it, any single parents on social assistance who are personally affected? Or do you have input from the Women's Policy Office?

MR. PECKFORD: Right now the primary staff working on the pilot are those of Social Services and the Department of Justice - some legal assistance from the Department of Justice. They would be consulting with our offices and perhaps consulting these other bodies that you mentioned as well. I am not certain of that.

MS. VERGE: Who is in charge of the pilot?

MR. PECKFORD: Well it is a joint effort of Social Services and Justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Ms. Verge. I now call upon Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I too, Sir, would like to congratulate you on your new appointment. Even though I do not know you very well personally, I think most of the people in the district where I live know you, and if your heart is half as big as some of the good things I have heard about you, and if you can convince some of your staff and some of your colleagues to be even close to that concern, then I am sure that you will be a very compassionate minister.

I also think that you have taken on a very big challenge. You are going to be probably dealing with some real - probably we should call them con artists - and some people who are very deserving to be where they are. Sometimes you may have to draw a fine line because I can assure you, as you know, there is a need there and there is a lot of abuse there.

So I wish you well, Sir, and I feel kind of happy, in fact, that I got the appointment to be a shadow cabinet member asking you some questions, because I know that I will get answers that you will put forward in a very capable way.

Some of those figures in this book here kind of intimidate me in that they are all general figures and I am not sure how to read them or where they came from, and I alluded to that in my short address today on the committee that I served on prior to now.

On Page 316, for instance, Professional Services, General Administration, it shows Professional Services $5,178,000 compared to the revised budget for 1992 of $3,657,000. Where is the difference there?

MR. LUSH: 1.2.02, okay, yes. Number 05, yes. So, what was your question?

MR. FITZGERALD: My question is: Why the vast difference there? What do we call Professional Services and why the increase for 1993-94?

MR. LUSH: Professional Services; these are normally services that a department gets outside of government. These are things not done by the department so they have to go outside to get them done. In this particular case, we are talking about the computers for the Department of Social Services. We are carrying on an extensive program with respect to computerizing the Department of Social Services all for the purpose of making it more efficient and to be able to serve the clients of the Province in a much more effective way. That is what that relates to there in that particular heading. It also considers rent, rental space and printing services, advertising and a number of things like that.

I want to just come back before I forget it, I did not do it to the other people, thanking people for their congratulations, I thank you very much. I also congratulate you, the Member for Bonavista South and all the other people who got re-elected. When I took this job they asked me how I was going to like it or how I am finding it and I say to them that I have dealt with all of the problems, probably not as specifically as I need to deal with them as minister, but I have dealt with all the problems in my seventeen years in politics but I do not know what the number is multiplied by. I do not know if it is fifty-two times the problems I deal with on a district level or whether it is 100 times, maybe in a years time I will be able to address that. In any event, I thank you for your congratulations and maybe next year this time, you will not feel as inclined to congratulate me. In any event, I take your good wishes and I intend to do the job to the best of my ability. Thank you very much.

I think that explains the Professional Services. I hope that we are into the computers here. That is the reason for that escalation of somewhere in a little excess of $2 million over the revised figures for 1992-93.

MR. FITZGERALD: Going on to page 322, 4.2.04, it says The Right Future and it gives a column there for 1993-94 -

MR. LUSH: Page 322, just take it easy now. I am not catching up with you, sorry. Page 322 and what?

MR. FITZGERALD: It gives a column there under The Right Future -

MR. LUSH: The Right Future, yes?

MR. FITZGERALD: - and it does not show anything for 1992-93, is this some new spending that we are looking at here?

MR. LUSH: Yes. That is a brand new program. It is only this year, that is why there is nothing in the other columns related to it. We have just started it this year and it refers to the - I do not know whether the hon. member heard about this - the attempt to integrate some of the people at the Waterford Hospital into the community. It is a big program and one that is being looked at actually right throughout - looked at by the nation - looking to us as an example in this particular area where we are taking out people with developmental disabilities and bringing them to community based service systems. So, that is why there are no other figures, there is only this year because it is a new program.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister also, in the book that we have here, Budget 1993 under social services it reads; funding for home support services in the Department of Social Services has been held at the 1992-93 Budgeted levels.

I have a memorandum here that was sent to all regional directors and it came from the Director of Social Assistance, and it reads; In order to remain within the 1993-94 Budget a reduction of 30 per cent from 1992-93 expenditure will be required. Why the sudden change from the memorandum to the Budget estimates here? That is for Home Support Services, Mr. Minister.

MR. LUSH: Well I think the hon. member knows that this is the same amount of money that was budgeted for 1992-93, but if my hon. friend will observe the middle column which is the revised, he will see that we spent $16,620,000 and I probably should allow my officials to comment on that if I am wrong. I think to stay within the budgetary figure of $13,120,000, with respect to Home Support Services where we are dealing with the physically disabled and senior citizens basically, I think these might be the two groups we are dealing with; there was a third one, the physically disabled, the developmentally delayed and seniors who may qualify.

These three groups. To insure that we stay within the budgetary figure of $13 million, these were guidelines that were sent to the officials, to the people in the regional offices to have a case by case study. We could have reduced it right across the board, if we wanted, just made a reduction, but we thought that doing it that way you would not be looking at the individual needs, so we thought the best system was to do a case by case analysis, to determine that the people were cared for in relationship to their needs and along with that, that memorandum was sent out with general guidelines to help people arrive at the analysis. I do not think it was meant to apply stringently in that sense, it was just something to help workers to come to some conclusion about how they could meet their budget restraints.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Fitzgerald's time is up right now, sir. Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again on that topic, I had a note to ask about that particular subhead. It is a $3.5 million reduction from what was required to meet the needs last year. I would not expect the minister to know this off the top of his tongue but I am sure one of his officials will. What is the breakdown in terms of that expenditure? How many individuals or units or homes or whatever are being served in the three categories here of homemaker services, attendant care and respite care? Is there a breakdown of that?

MR. LUSH: I do not know if there is a breakdown of each one, but the total caseload, the total we are dealing with in Home Support Services is 1,051, but whether it is broken down into -

some people get it all.

MR. HARRIS: It says either breakdown by physically disabled, senior citizens and developmentally delayed. These are developmentally delayed adults I take it?

MR. LUSH: Yes, both of them.

MR. HARRIS: And children as well? So will we be talking about respite care primarily for the developmentally delayed, is that -

MR. LUSH: Mostly seniors, is it not? I saw that figure somewhere.

MR. PECKFORD: The nature of the services that the various clients receive in the categories that you mentioned, varies with the individuals. Some individuals get home care, attendant care and respite care; other individuals would be cared for by the family and only require respite care so certainly, if we were to analyze our numbers we could certainly differentiate as to how much is home care, how much is respite care and so forth. I do not have that data right now but in the case of developmentally delayed individuals, the home care component would probably be higher than the respite care. So it varies with the client and the client's needs.

MR. HARRIS: Let me guess and say that if I were Treasury Board you'd have to tell me more than that to either get this amount of money or explain how we were going to take $3.5 million away from you without doing any harm. I'm asking the questions, what percentage of this $13.16 million, or how much of the $13.12 million is to be spent for each of these categories, whether it be respite care, attendant care or home care. Or in the categories of the individuals involved, or how many individuals are involved. Ten fifty-one, that's a correct figure, I take it, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Um hmm.

MR. HARRIS: So there's that many individuals who are involved in it. Is there a breakdown on how many are in each category? There must be some allocations other than the global amount of $13 million. If you spent $16.6 million last year and somehow Treasury Board is saying: you're only going to get $13.12 million, somebody must have analyzed what that's going to do to people, or whether it's needed or whether it's not. What I'm suggesting is that surely some analysis is available, or something more than what's been offered right now is available.

MR. PECKFORD: The caseload breaks down to about - 33 per cent of the 1,051 would be seniors, 20 per cent would be physically disabled, and 47 per cent would be developmentally delayed. The question that the previous member asked relating to the memorandum that was just sent out to regional staff: that particular memorandum was intended to give guidance to the regional staff who are conducting an evaluation of each individual case of the 1,051 cases to assess the levels of attendant care, respite care and other care that has been given. That these people require.

We do have some knowledge today on how that breaks down. However, we felt that it was necessary to do a more up to date and complete evaluation of each individual case, which has been ongoing now for about a month or six weeks. We should have it completed shortly. Which will give us a precise picture at this time of the kind of care and assistance that these cases are receiving.

MR. HARRIS: What's happening here, though, and I appreciate, as the minister pointed out, that the budgeted amount this year is the same as last year. But last year the need was there for $16.6 million worth of care. Otherwise, I assume, the department would not have provided that level of care. What we have now is a 20 per cent reduction of funds allocated this year than were spent last year, and that has to result in the physically disabled individuals, the seniors, and the developmentally delayed receiving 20 per cent less services. Unless we've got a 20 per cent reduction in the caseload. I wonder, can the minister say that case load of 1,051 is projected to increase or decrease this year?

MR. LUSH: I don't particularly know but I think it's fair to say that we don't know whether there will be a decrease. That's one of the reasons why for the analysis and the study. It seems to me we would do this, or we ought to do it, even if we weren't into a budgetary restraint. This is something we should do. Because it's going to change. It might be that some of the people who we're now dealing with either don't need as much care; it's possible that some of them could come off entirely; it's possibly, thirdly, that we've been probably a little too generous.

So regardless whether we're into budgetary restraints or not, we should carry on this study from time to time just to find out what is the exact status of the caseload with which we're dealing. There's no question, in the meantime, that a budgetary restraint is probably what's causing us to do it now. My suggestion is that if there were not a budgetary restraint it's something we should be doing anyway.

MR. HARRIS: I assume that there's an ongoing monitoring system within the department. But this review is to cut back by 20 per cent the level of services being offered, is that the case?

MR. LUSH: It is an attempt to meet our budgetary restraint, or our budgetary allocation, of $13 million.

MR. HARRIS: I know that the minister was not the minister at the time but was it felt, in making the budget submissions to Treasury Board, that a reduction of 20 per cent was achievable without doing harm to the level of services and the need that was there?

MR. LUSH: I am not sure whether that indeed was the line of argument advanced or whether they got all they money they looked for - or whether they thought that would be sufficient.

MR. HARRIS: How does this process work, Mr. Minister? If there was a budgeted amount of $13 million last year, obviously the additional monies were spent, and I assume that the department would be responding to the need that was there, that was discovered and that was found by the department operating within the policies that existed for granting these monies. I suppose the question is: From where does that money come? Does it come from other appropriations in the department? Or is there extra money in supplementary supply? Or is that something that you just look at at the end of the year and say: Oh, we spent $3 million more than we had.

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point, Mr. Harris, your time has expired again.

MR. HARRIS: I will leave it then for another time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you want to go back again, I take it? Yes, okay.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

I would like to ask the minister about the proposed new federal program called `Brighter Futures' intended to provide funding to community organizations to help families with young children at risk.

I understand the federal government, Health and Welfare Canada, are negotiating agreements or protocols with each of the provinces. The last time I checked, which was March, the negotiations between the Newfoundland and Labrador government and Health and Welfare Canada, for our protocol, were well advanced and the expectation on the part of both provincial and federal officials I talked to is that the agreement would be signed in late April. Has the protocol been signed? If not, when do you think it will be signed?

MR. LUSH: It seems to me that it is not signed, because it seems to me again that there was a document that crossed my desk related to that just a few days ago, so I do not know what time we are looking at now, Mr. Peckford might have a better idea of that.

MR. PECKFORD: That is correct. The protocol agreement with the federal government has not been signed yet. Over the months of perhaps March and April a consultant was engaged by Health and Welfare Canada, who did some evaluation of data in the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health, to identify the various communities which probably had children at risk in the ages of zero to six, to which the agreement applies.

That first phase of evaluation has been completed now, and a further consultant has also been hired now by Health and Welfare Canada to analyze this data, to identify the priority areas. The first approach was a more broad-brushed approach to identify the primary areas. The second consultant now is taking that data, evaluating it more closely, and visiting the various communities to assess what the community response to this group presently is and what the potential for community response would be to address the needs of the targeted population. So once that second report is in, then we will be in a better position to identify government priorities - which areas should receive funding and how much.

MS. VERGE: When do you think the protocol will be signed?

MR. PECKFORD: I would guess in perhaps one to two months.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

How much money will Health and Welfare Canada provide for this Province - I know it does not come to the provincial government, but for projects and activities in this Province - in the 1993-'94 fiscal year?

MR. PECKFORD: Half-a-million dollars.

MS. VERGE: A half-a-million? How much in each of the next four years?

MR. PECKFORD: The same amount.

MS. VERGE: I thought it was more like $1 million a year?

MR. PECKFORD: No, I do not think.

It is based on population of the children in the ages zero to six.

MS. VERGE: I looked at the national total and divided by forty, we have 2.5 per cent of the population roughly, and it worked out to over $1 million a year.

MR. PECKFORD: The total amount that the federal government has set aside for Brighter Futures also includes monies for native children which has been administered directly by the federal government and all administration and evaluation is coming out of that pot as well. So, once those amounts have been extracted then the remaining amount is divided on population.

MS. VERGE: Okay. So, from what you are saying in terms of cash flow from the feds into this Province, even though the protocol will not be signed until partway through the Budget year, you are now saying July/August, and the fiscal year started on April cite, the money essentially will be given with effect from April sat.

We have in Corner Brook the Dunfield Park Child/Parent Resource Centre which fell through the cracks of federal programs. It was started and operated for over a year with the Health and Welfare Child Care Initiatives Grant. The sponsors of the program, the Corner Brook Citizens Action Child Care Committee, expected in good faith that Brighter Futures would be on stream last Fall and would provide funding for that program to continue. There has been a succession of delays and Brighter Futures still is not in place. The centre had to close at the end of March when the child care initiatives grant ended. I have asked the government, and I will ask the minister now, why will not social services provide a bridging grant for interim funding to the Dunfield Park Child/Parent Resource Centre on the condition, and this can be done with Justice lawyers, that the sponsoring agency undertake to repay the Province the bridging funding out of Brighter Futures revenue which it gets so that the Dunfield Park program can resume?

Unfortunately, it has already been closed for April, May and part of June but a federal/provincial agreement always takes way longer than anyone ever estimates. This is just the most recent in a long list of examples. As I say, when I asked in March, I was told the end of April. When I asked now in June, I was told July or August. I will probably ask next September and be told Christmas but in the meantime the families at Dunfield Park in that neighbourhood in Corner Brook who were benefiting from the Child/Parent Resource Centre, from the early childhood education programs that were going on there have been let down. Basically, there is nothing happening there worthwhile now. So, Brighter Futures eventually is going to come on stream. It will not be as soon as anyone expects because these things never shape-up when they are supposed to but eventually it will and the money will be given for 1993-94 with effect from April sit.

Dunfield Park almost certainly will get funding. The project sponsors have been talking to all the key people in the federal and provincial systems from the beginning. So, why make these people wait and suffer when all the Province has to do is basically give them a loan? Give them a bit of bridging funding and recover it later. Get them to sign an undertaking, the same as you do with your social assistance recipients all the time. You get social assistance recipients all the time to sign written undertakings to pay back social assistance advanced now, to enable them to eat now, while they are waiting for their court decision or while they are waiting for their federal payments. What I am saying is, in a similar way, why will you not give the Dunfield Park Child/Parent Resource Centre interim funding now, get them to sign an undertaking to pay you back when they get their federal money.

MR. LUSH: Get who to sign, Dunfield? Get Dunfield Park to sign?

MS. VERGE: The sponsoring group is the Corner Brook Citizens Action Child Care Committee.

MR. LUSH: I know that whole matter has been looked at, it has been studied. I do not know where the report is, whether it is done, I know the whole matter has been studied, I do not know whether the department ever entertained that notion of committing monies before we knew what the situation was. I do not know what the score is with the Brighter Futures, I know that the hon. member has raised it and I do not know why the delay, but I expect the Province would be rather reluctant in the meantime in getting itself signing away the money before it comes, but I know Dunfield Park has been studied and whether we have a report back yet, Mr. Peckford, if you would like to comment on it.

MR. PECKFORD: Before my comment. Just quickly, I made a little error in my previous remark which I just remembered. The protocol agreement will probably be signed earlier than that, once the protocol agreement is signed we will still need to wait until the conclusion of the study that is in place right now to identify the communities and the areas where the funding seems to be most acutely in need and then the money will be applied to those areas.

MS. VERGE: And that will be a joint decision of a committee with feds and -

MR. PECKFORD: Federal and provincial governments, that is right so the protocol agreement would probably be signed earlier than that. That was a mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, Ms. Verge.

Mr. Fitzgerald.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, I do not know if we have increased the Budget on counselling services this year, is there much effort put forward in counselling rather than passing out welfare cheques and payments, biweekly or monthly?

MR. LUSH: I am not sure of the (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Counselling social services recipients and with that I am referring to - I can name you lots of cases. I know one gentleman in fact who works at an establishment in Clarenville, and he makes about eighteen dollars an hour, and every time he gets laid off, he works twenty to twenty-five weeks a year, and every time he gets laid off, he is off to the welfare office collecting a welfare cheque until he gets his unemployment insurance.

Now you can keep handing out that gentleman cheques as long as you want to and it will never change unless you change the person's attitude and the way he thinks. I am wondering if there is anything like that happening out there, or is it just people dealing with the particular cases and paying bills? It all goes back to education. I think if we educate people and if we try to get at the root of the problem rather than throw money at it, maybe we can solve some of our problems there.

MR. LUSH: I do not think our monies in counselling go that far. Our monies in counselling are usually dealing with the person who is a recipient of social service and we try to offer counselling services of different varieties there in terms of life skills, that kind of thing, but I guess the kind of thing you are talking about is a broader aspect of our educational system.

It is one of the things that we try to deal with in restraints and it probably does not always work. We know that every person around the table here has heard of extravagance in social services and when we get into a time of restraint, sometimes we hope to cut out that kind of thing, but it does not always work I realize. I will just quote an example to the hon. member now in reference to what Mr. Harris raised as well earlier.

Somebody had enquired about me, they had not seen me since I was Social Services Minister and they were longing to see me, because there was a lady next door with a bad back who had three people looking after her, and he wanted to address that situation with me saying that he had a bad back too, but he was out working, so you know, these things go on. You are right, there is an educational system for that. Our cutbacks are aimed at that, to get at that kind of thing and we do not want to get into, as the hon. Member for St. John's East is referring, a situation where we hurt people. We hope that is not the kind of thing we do; we hope to cut out the excess wherever that might be.

MR. FITZGERALD: I'd like also to refer back to the 30 per cent reduction which I referred to earlier. You stated that it was a figure that was put out to district offices.

MR. LUSH: As a guideline, yes.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, I can assure you that the district offices are taking the 30 per cent very seriously.

MR. LUSH: We know.

MR. FITZGERALD: In fact, I talked with one person the other day who lives in my district. It's a situation that I'd like to be able to tell you about. A gentleman is lying in bed there. He weighs about 220 pounds.

MR. LUSH: Something like myself.

MR. FITZGERALD: Totally paralysed from -

MR. LUSH: Two twenty.

MR. FITZGERALD: - totally paralysed from the - he's not as healthy as you are, Minister. Totally paralysed from the waist down. The only way that he can get up out of his bed, he's got a piece of rope tied onto the ceiling, and he has to haul himself up with the piece of rope. The lady in the house weighs about 110 pounds. He's seventy-eight years old, I think, and she's sixty-four, sixty-three. I've been trying to get some home care for them. They called the office in Bonavista and the gentleman there informed her that the only way they would get home care is under an absolute emergency. I asked her if she asked what the emergency was. He said: I'll tell you what it amounts to. That if you can turn on a light switch or turn off a tap we don't consider that as an emergency.

To me, those are pretty hard words to tell somebody, who is an invalid in bed. Should you have a fire or should you need to leave the house yourself - this lady hasn't been to church for two months. In order for her to go out and buy groceries she has to take her husband to the hospital in Bonavista to get a needle, and while he's in the hospital waiting for doctor's care she has to rush out and get her groceries in order to get home again.

The gentleman explains to me that the only reason why she doesn't have care is because she has two other daughters living in the general area. Mr. Minister, you don't have me to tell you that because you have two daughters or a son somewhere that those people are going to be there when you need them. Relatives are not always that compatible with the mothers or father, especially when they can't look after themselves.

So to me this is not an extreme case. I think there are probably lots of cases that are existing out there everywhere. It's a prime example of where people are taking that 30 per cent. Not looking at it as a guideline, but a fine line that must be followed. So I ask you, sir, if that's not the case then those people should be notified of that, and I think some of those situations should be remedied.

Getting back to students for a minute - student books. If I am a welfare recipient and I have a son or daughter who is in Grade V, VI, VIII, X, any number, how do my children get books? Is it a situation where they go forward and the books are automatically passed out to them as new books, or is there a book lot from which they draw?

MR. LUSH: I have heard that before. My perception is that they get new books. That is my perception, whereas you and I are likely to try to get secondhand ones. I am just going by my perception, that they are provided with new books, and we will see how correct we are - both of us.

MR. PECKFORD: The family on social assistance who has a need for school books is given, by our office, a certificate that is known as an inability to pay the required amount for the books, and they present that to the school and the books are provided then.

MR. FITZGERALD: So they get new books every year?

MR. PECKFORD: I would imagine, though, that they are probably encouraged to see if they can acquire all their used books or anything, but if the result is that they need books, that they do not have, and they do not have the ability to pay, we will verify that and they will be provided books.

MR. FITZGERALD: These are some of the ways, I think, that we can save some money, even though it may not be a lot of money, but when you look at the number of social service recipients we have, and the number of children, there is probably a big saving there. I know my children when they were going to school - even today in university - do not have the luxury of having new books. So that is something we should probably look at.

Welfare police - have the ten welfare police been hired?

MR. LUSH: No, but it is in process. I do not know whether - the call has been made. It is an internal competition. I do not know whether the interviewing has started, Mr. Peckford. If not, it is about to, is it not?

MR. FITZGERALD: So they are not hired yet?

The VRDP program - has government changed its mind on that particular program?

MR. LUSH: No. What happened with respect to the VRDP was that the consumers of that program approached the government when the government introduced the student loan component, and the government felt that they could not retract on their attempt to save $300,000, I think is what they wanted - in that area. The group was not at all aversive to that idea. I am not saying they welcomed it, but they thought that everybody had to play their part and they will willing to do it, but not the student loan route. They thought there were other ways in which they could achieve this saving, so they set up a committee of the consumer groups to look into that, and I think the government had agreed that if they could convince the government that they could come up with the $300,000 savings outside of the student loan option, that government would be willing to, if not accept it, certainly to look at it and, as far as I know accept it if there were actual savings.

So my understanding is that the report of that committee has now been in, and is ready for the report to be submitted to Cabinet, with the recommendations made by the committee. However long that process takes, I would not want to put a time on it, but we are certainly looking at - I suppose it should be done inside of a month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has now expired. It is 8:55 p.m. and we are about halfway through this, so I would suggest, if it is the will of the committee, that we might have a short break for ten minutes. Then we could come back and start again at about 9:10 p.m., if that is the agreement of the committee, and I will recognize Mr. Harris when I come back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

If the minister would take his seat now, we could get this meeting going again. As much as we like to have meetings all over the place, I would suggest to the minister that he might take his place so we could carry on with this meeting. Would someone bring the minister to order, please?

Now we are back, and Mr. Harris is next.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I should say that the delay, by the way, although it was five minutes delayed, may well have proven to be a very useful delay for the recipients of social assistance in the Province, but we look forward to further discussions with the minister about that at a later date.

I wanted to continue on the issue of home care services. I have had a chance to look at this memorandum sent by Terrence Haire, the director of social assistance, and in it - I do not know if the department made this available to all hon. members or not, but at lease one of them is available: In order to remain within the 1993-94 Budget a reduction of 30 per cent from 1992-93 expenditures would be required. Then they suggest that district managers may wish to use this figure as a guide to achieve individual objectives, so I assume he is suggesting that individuals should expect a 30 per cent cutback of their own services.

Leaving that aside for a moment, a 30 per cent reduction in services from the 1992-93 expenditures, 30 per cent of $16.6 million is $4.98 or $5 million so Mr. Haire would like to reduce the expenditures by $5 million whereas the budgeted amount for 1993-94 is only $3.5 million less than the expenditures for 1992-93. Mr. Haire would like to reduce the matter by an additional $1.5 million less than the estimates for 1993-94. I am just curious, is Mr. Haire being given some incentive to further reduce the expenditures for this amount below the Budget so that instead of a $13.12 million estimate Mr. Haire's review would result in a further reduction from $13.1 million down to $11.6? Is he acting under directives from the minister's office or from the deputy minister's office when he seeks to reduce the 1993-94 Budget by an additional $1.5 million in that particular head?

MR. LUSH: As we said these were just guidelines. I do not know what the exact percentage would have been. It could be easily worked out as I am talking.

MR. HARRIS: Twenty.

MR. LUSH: So it would be twenty, to achieve the $13.12 million. If that is the case then he has probably gone a little too high, but I would think, as I said, because it is a general guideline it might very well be that in assessing the needs some cases could be reduced - you might be talking about 20 per cent for some people and in another case you may reduce it for part of the year to 40 per cent, depending on the need. The department is addressing all kinds of needs. For example, one has to be careful because the person may have called another person and be easily identifiable in this particular group and we would not want to do that.

I know in one case we are providing services to a person who is a bit - I am probably using a strong term - paranoid with respect to the dark, and coming on the Summer now when it is going to be daylight for a much longer period of time we could reduce that probably by three hours, so I just use that as an example. There are all kinds of peculiarities that people have that are real. They may be emotional, or whatever, but they are real so what we have done in an effort to offer our people some kind of guidelines, is to make these suggestions.

I ask my officials to correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think there is any intent to follow each of these guidelines to the nth degree right throughout all the categories. I think you will see they mention certain categories and they are meant to be just that, an analysis of each case, and then to look at that with other people. Again my understanding is that the results of their studies, or the comeback to headquarters, is to be looked at and a final decision made after we have gone through each case thoroughly with as much information as possible addressed by the factors identified by the people out in the field, and from that we will make a determination. I know I am belabouring the point but I think it was just meant to be precisely that, a guideline, and for us to look at the whole thing in terms of the need.

MR. HARRIS: I know the minister may well intend it to be a guideline but the letter and the directive to the people in the field who are the ones making the decision, I gather Mr. Haire is not going to make these decisions, this is a directive to the field to make these reductions. He specifically says - there may be a guideline for each individual case, but he specifically says that in order to remain within the Budget a reduction of 30 per cent would be required. Would the minister be prepared to ask his officials to direct Mr. Haire to revise his figures and pass on the information that only a reduction of 20 per cent would be required to meet the objective set forth in the 1993 Budget because this particular attitude, if he is off by 10 per cent in what he is telling the individuals, surely that is going to result in a further reduction beyond what is required of services to individuals?

MR. LUSH: I think as a result of that letter action has been taken and it is my understanding that Mr. Haire has met with the people concerned and explained fully what the department's intentions were with respect to the memo to which the hon. member refers.

MR. HARRIS: Has Mr. Haire told them that a 20 per cent reduction is required only and not a 30 per cent reduction?

MR. LUSH: I am not certain that we told him that. What was done, in reference to what I am saying, is that he was told to inform his staff what the department's intentions were in this respect, simply to establish guidelines to help us meet the budgetary restraints.

MR. HARRIS: But he is using the wrong guidelines. The point I am making is that the guideline he is using is 30 per cent and the actual reduction that is sought to be achieved is 20 per cent.

MR. LUSH: Again, if you get into the percentages, these monies, I think, have been allocated on a regional basis to the areas and I think if you got into allocating what was needed in each area you might be getting into odd percentages and again, as I said, I think these were just figures to try to approach and when they came back they would make the recommendation in Case A to say that 30 per cent would be far too much in this case and we think that 18 per cent is a more -

MR. HARRIS: Or zero.

MR. LUSH: Or zero. It could very well be. I think the percentage is a bit irrelevant in a sense. It is just an objective which we try to achieve, but thinking again in terms of the need. Nowhere are we going to apply 30 per cent where somebody needed 100 per cent, needed it absolutely full-time.

MR. HARRIS: Well, Mr. Haire certainly intends to save 30 per cent from last year's Budget and that is very clear from the letter that he sent out. I know the minister means well but it certainly seems clear as to what Mr. Haire intends to do. Another thing he says in his letter, under the heading of how to deal with senior citizens and persons with physical disabilities, he says: review each case to determine the absolute minimum number of hours of care that needs to be provided without jeopardizing the safety of the disabled person. Now, that sounds particularly mean spirited to me. Would the minister tell us whether or not the care provided senior citizens and persons with physical disabilities is designed merely to look after their safety? Isn't the kind of care that we're talking about here, whether it be homemaker services - homemaker services could be provided, I suppose, without jeopardizing their safety at a very low level of care, I presume. You wouldn't have to clean the house very much to keep it safe. You wouldn't have to go overboard with other kinds of washing clothes and things like that to keep it safe. I realize I'm being a bit cynical here.

The review that's being requested here seems to me particularly mean spirited. To talk about the absolute minimum number of hours of care that needs to be provided without jeopardizing safety. That seems to me to be a very, very, very low standard of either attendant care or homemaker services, or respite care for that matter, to be a standard to be applied by your department. Would the minister agree with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, your time has expired. I don't know if we could have the minister's answer by leave.

MS. VERGE: You could give leave for the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Has the Committee given leave for the answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Minister.

MR. LUSH: I think the member probably should emphasize the last part rather than the first part which talks about the absolute minimum. The significant part of the letter I think is the part which suggests safety. Again what we're trying to achieve here is to make sure that we are not being overly generous, but that we are providing the disabled person, the senior citizen, the mentally disabled, whatever the case might be, with a level of care that doesn't put the person through any unnecessary suffering or that would jeopardize the person's life. I think that's reasonable. That's the part that should be emphasized. Again, I think that's been fully explained to the people concerned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you. I'd like to ask the minister about the possibility that Social Services, in preparing this budget, is being penny wise and pound foolish. These estimates are for a total spending of $158 million. One hundred and fifty-eighty million dollars is a lot of money.

MR. LUSH: Where is this?

MS. VERGE: That's the bottom line, on the last page.

MR. LUSH: The net spending, yes.

MS. VERGE: Yes.

MR. LUSH: Okay.

MS. VERGE: I'm sorry, yes, it is net spending.

MR. LUSH: Net spending.

MS. VERGE: That doesn't count the 50 per cent contribution from the federal government -

MR. LUSH: That's right.

MS. VERGE: - through the Canada Assistance Plan for many of the programs. Actually, the minister reminds me that the total spending, the gross spending, is probably close to double that.

MR. LUSH: Two hundred and ninety-seven point three million dollars, as a matter of fact, I believe. It's $297 million.

MS. VERGE: So almost exactly doubled. Okay. The point is even stronger in that case. Three hundred million dollars total spending. Most of it going for people who are disadvantaged. Either because they're poor, because they're disabled, because they are young people who've committed criminal offences, because they are children who've been abused. Most of the spending is reactive, spending to deal with problems after they've arisen. Very little of it is of a preventative nature. My colleague asked a little while ago about spending for counselling.

One of the significant changes in these estimates compared to what was spent last year was significant reductions in the paltry amount that was provided to third-party organizations, community organizations. One of the major budget announcements of the government was a significant cut in funding to what the Minister of Finance called third party organizations. Social services cut community organizations as bad or worse than other departments.

Many of the organizations that social services is proposing to cut are agencies which provide counselling services which help to prevent problems which otherwise might develop - organizations which put their own resources to work and which raise money from the community.

The list of cuts which the Minister of Finance tabled after two weeks or more of requests from the Opposition - the list that was tabled just before the election was called - included cuts to organizations such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, from $90,000 last year, to $50,000; personal credit counselling service cut in half from $32,000 last year to $16,000 this year; elimination completely of the $32,000 each to the church counselling services in St. John's - the Catholic, Anglican and United churches; a cut by half of the small grant to the Newfoundland Hearing Association, $22,800 last year, $11,900 this year; a cut to the Goodwill Centre from $33,900 last year to $13,900 this year; a cut to the CNIB, $449,000 last year, $344,900 this year; a cut to the Centre for Understanding People's Problems - I confess I have never heard of that before - from $74,000 last year to $54,000 this year; reduction in half to the Canadian Association for Community Living, $15,000 last year, $7,500 this year; a cut to the Community Services Council of $57,300 last year to $29,000 this year.

Now all those cuts that I just listed add up to about one-tenth of 1 percent - .001 - of the estimated total gross spending of social services. To me that seems to be penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Has the department reconsidered any of these cuts? Perhaps the election campaign might have had some bearing on some of these decisions, and have any of the grants been altered from the list tabled in the House of Assembly by the Minister of Finance?

MR. LUSH: Mr. Chairman, let me say two things first of all about the cuts. It is not accurate to say that they have been cut by the amounts that have been suggested because in some cases it had to do with something going on in the previous year. They had asked for a level of funding in the previous year, in 1992-'93 because of a certain circumstance, and the government responded with a one-time effort. I do not recall all of them, but I know in some of the cases, the CNIB for example, there was something that went on there.

MS. VERGE: According to this list there was $397,900 requested for this year -

MR. LUSH: From whom?

MS. VERGE: - which was $50,000 less than given last year, but there was $50,000 less than requested approved for this year?

MR. LUSH: Yes, and there were others as well. I just mentioned that there were others where they had surpluses last year, something in fund-raising, and the government this year brought it back to last year's normal, deducting the amount of surplus.

MS. VERGE: Perhaps I will take them one by one.

MR. LUSH: To address the big question, I do not know whether all the organizations to which the hon. member refers to are, but I think most of the agencies, are under review. Whether or not it was as a result of the election I am not prepared to say, but the point is that they are all under review with officials from that organization to determine again whether or not the amount of money given them was a reflection of the kind of work they are doing, and hopefully if they have been underfunded something will be done about it. Most of the organizations, the community organizations and agencies are under review.

MS. VERGE: Well, let me ask the minister specifically, Big Brothers/Big Sisters -

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: - that is under review?

MR. LUSH: Big Brothers? Yes and there was something with Big Brothers - again, there is something in my mind about that one. I have forgotten what it was. I just forget - maybe it is the size of the reduction but was there - was there not something peculiar about the Big Brothers?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: There was something removed or was there something that they did that is done by somebody else? It does not matter but I think there was something -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: No. Big Brothers too, it seems it is something that is now looked after - that it is passed over to the Department of Health which was an explanation why theirs was a little lower. I have forgotten that there was another one that did not request anything this year.

MS. VERGE: Big Brothers/Big Sisters requested the same for this year as they got last year which was $90,000 and there was only $50,000 approved. Actually, I have personally met with representatives of that organization and they were shocked and would be hard hit by that amount of a reduction. They raised way more on their own than the department provides but if they lose this seed funding then their ability to carry on their operations will be hurt. What about the personal credit counselling service?

MR. LUSH: Yes, that is under review.

MS. VERGE: Okay. The church counselling services in St. John's?

MR. LUSH: Yes, that is under review.

MS. VERGE: Is the community services counsel under review?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: The Goodwill Centre?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: When will you make decisions on all of these?

MR. LUSH: I heard your response to that today somewhere.

MR. PECKFORD: We have assigned one of our staff exclusively to meet with each of these organizations, spend some time with them, visit their offices and the like. That is ongoing now. I anticipate it to be completed in perhaps a week or so and perhaps in another week or two, to complete the report to submit to the government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Verge your time has expired. Mr. Fitzgerald?

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister I would like to refer back to this report here again if I may. Once again I repeat here in the Budget, it says; funding for Support Services, the Department of Social Services has been held at the 1992-93 Budget levels. Mr. Haire comes out and is looking for a 30 per cent reduction and I think, Mr. Minister, you referred to a 20 per cent reduction as being realistic.-

MR. LUSH: No, that was Mr. Harris.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Harris referred to a 20 per cent reduction which was realistic according to the figures here and it goes on to say that this review should be completed and returned by May 31st, 1993. So, I am wondering if there has been a 30 per cent reduction, a 20 per cent reduction or when will we know the level of home care that has been deducted out in the areas for social service recipients?

MR. LUSH: At this point in time there has been no reduction and I think that we are probably a bit behind. Again, we are talking about guidelines and that is indicative of what we are talking about here, even that date has not been adhered to. I do not know how close we are to it but I know that nothing has been done and that the full analysis is not in or not by that date anyway.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, there has certainly been a big change out in the districts, I can assure you of that, because I am aware of one particular case where this family with a two-and-a-half year old child is now asked to take a stranger to go in under another program because there has been a reduction in the home care program. There is a program put in place for social service recipients to go to work and this particular person who had this individual looking after their son for two-and-a-half years, are now finding that there is a stranger coming in the house to look after the two-and-a-half year old son because of those reductions. It says right here, in another part of this memorandum: where appropriate use of community development should be considered as a means of provision of respite home support. Some of those decisions have already been made I can assure you and I am sure that they reacted to this letter where they have been looking for a 30 per cent reduction.

MR. LUSH: Again, I do not know whether these things would have been done as a result of that particular letter, but there are things that ought to be done without the letter. There are things that if in the view of the officials in the district there are certain arrangements that can be made because they are more in line with the needs of the individual then I am sure that they ought to be made. I think there would be changes made without this letter. There are ongoing things that happen, and whether that particular case to which you refer would be done as a result of this - there are things that would go on particularly at this time of the year. Coming into the Summer things would be done because of the very nature of Summer. Sicknesses seem to ease up a bit, people make certain arrangements, and if a person is going to go to work they will make certain arrangements to accommodate that situation. I am just trying to suggest to you that I do not think that all of the changes we hear about, and I hear about them all the time, were made as a result of that letter, but if there are any, there ought not to be, unless I am wrong on that. There may be suggestions made to people at this point in time but there ought not to be, according to my understanding, any changes made as a result of that.

MR. FITZGERALD: I wonder if the minister would let the House know or this committee know, at a later date when those figures become available, exactly how much money was reduced in home care this year compared to last year?

MR. LUSH: Certainly.

MR. FITZGERALD: How much does the Department of Social Services expect to save on the new denture program, where dentures are not made available to social service recipients?

MR. LUSH: Where they are not made available?

MR. FITZGERALD: Yes.

MR. LUSH: Did we ever have a denture program where somebody could get dentures as a matter of course? I have interceded on behalf of people over the last number of years and it has always been very difficult to get dentures for people. You had to prove that they would almost die if they did not get them, that they could not digest their food at all, that it went down in lumps and they would die from ulcers or something. That is the only way I could get dentures for people because they always considered them to be cosmetic.

MR. HARRIS: Now that you are a minister you can change that.

MR. FITZGERALD: That is something, Mr. Minister, that I think you could look at. I think it is probably a very degrading thing that because you are on social services you cannot afford to have the Colgate smile or something. When you go out there and talk about our health care problems and everything else, I think that all reflects back on good health care and probably ways in which we can save money in the long run. I am not suggesting that we go out and give everybody a blank cheque to get a new pair of dentures but I think it is unfair to go and say that it will not be provided. If the need is there I think we should look at it and judge every case by its merits.

MR. LUSH: I think that might be the policy under which they operate but the need has to be a tremendous one from my experience. It is the same with glasses, by the way. Those of us who have been around have been trying for years to get glasses and dentures for our constituents and some I have succeeded with and some I have not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

During the election campaign I met an individual who was not in my district, in fact he was from the town of Stephenville, who was a social services recipient. He came up to me in a public place and he was very concerned about three policies of the department, and two of them we have just alluded to. The first one, he said, if I had my teeth taken out and I cannot get dentures what is wrong with me that I am not allowed to have teeth in order to eat? He said, I found out that I cannot get glasses and my eyes are bad. What is wrong with me that I am not allowed to be able to see because I am on social assistance? He said if I have to go to Corner Brook to the hospital - now this is a man in his late 60s - if I have to go to Corner Brook to the doctor and I have to leave at 8 o'clock in the morning and I am there all day, I'm not entitled to a lunch. They've changed that policy. I can't get a lunch in Corner Brook. I go in a taxi to the hospital, I stay at the hospital, I'm there at the hospital all day to wait for a clinic or whatever it is, and then I can come back. I don't get lunch. They used to provide an allowance to be able to get lunch in Corner Brook.

He said those three polices were ones that made him feel like less than a person because he was on social assistance. I know the minister has just talked about his own difficulties in trying to get individual cases resolved for constituents. Everyone has had that experience. But I ask the minister, quite sincerely: now that the minister is the minister, and that these policies are under his control and direction, will the minister undertake to try and change these policies?

MR. LUSH: I would love to look into something like this to provide our people with the basics of life. What I've got to be concerned about, not only as the minister, but I was concerned about it when I was in the Opposition, is at what cost? The moment we get into dental work and this kind of thing we're into something that is very expensive. Not only ordinary people, middle income people have to make certain decisions about this. Even the insurance companies now are tightening up. I remember at one time my wife was on a dental plan, and as a result of my being her husband I benefited from it too. But I can tell you, that's changed dramatically since first when we started on this plan. Because it's so expensive.

I'd be willing to sit down with the member, I really would, to look at what we think are the absolute criteria. It really bothers me to go into somebody's house and - two things, to find them, as you say, without teeth, or with teeth that are causing all kinds of problems. I've actually had a friend come to me on behalf of a constituent with respect to getting her teeth extracted. They felt that she didn't have the nerve to ask me. It was beneath her dignity to do it. The guy told me: she needs them out, they're diseased and all this kind of thing.

That's pretty big stuff in my view. I don't know what kind of a job I'd have convincing the people, but I think it's something that should be addressed. The same with eyes. People who can't read a newspaper. They don't have many luxuries in life, and God, your eyes have to be a vital thing. If they can't sit down and read a book what else can they do. But I realize that these are two things that can be abused, dental and eyes. I'd be willing to sit down with somebody to determine what we can do to take the abuse out of it and that we do give needy people dentures and that we do give needy people glasses.

But as I said, I'd want to have something that we wouldn't be a laughingstock in Newfoundland. By the same token, the Member for Bonavista South wouldn't be saying what he's saying about his friend who gets unemployed and goes up to Social Services. We've got to spend our money in a prudent manner, particularly in these times of restraints, but at the same time I'm inclined to look at those people with these problems. I'd like for the hon. member to sit down with me some time and make a recommendation as to just what we can do, how this can be done, so that the system is not abused.

We've got no system in place, I don't think, other than to determine things by need. That leaves it pretty much open to a person. As I've said, my understanding of the case right now is that you have to be pretty desperate. I expect that's why. Because if you opened it up you would be into - I don't know, but I'm sure it's an exorbitant amount of money. Are you saying we should get into partials, or should we just give them dentures?

MR. HARRIS: Well, I -

MR. LUSH: I don't say that in a way to be derogatory.

MR. HARRIS: I'm not dealing with the detail of a policy, Minister, as you know. I'm dealing with the notion of an individual who can go and have all of his teeth taken out but he can't have anything put back in, and feels that this is an indignity. I agree with him.

MR. LUSH: I do too.

MR. HARRIS: Similarly with glasses. That's why I raised it. I thank the minister.

MR. LUSH: Let me ask the hon. member a question. Is he familiar with what -

MR. HARRIS: I thank the minister for his compassionate response. I intend to follow up with him in the future. But as to the detail of a policy, I'm sure his officials will be able to tell him how many requests they have for that and what the costs might be. We're dealing here with dentures, we're not dealing with orthodontic work and that sort of thing. We're just dealing with the basic ability to be able to chew one's food and not have to prove, as the minister may have had to in the past, that that's going to be life-threatening.

I'm sure any nutritionist or doctor would be able to verify that teeth provide a useful service in digestion and health generally, so I don't think that the department should be putting individuals or hon. members through the indignity of trying to prove that without teeth, it is going to be seriously health threatening and so I see a policy change. The actual details of it obviously the minister would have to work out.

MR. LUSH: I am just going to ask the hon. member a question, not to get him off his train of thought on what he is doing, but, are we familiar with other parts of Canada, about what happens with respect to these two areas, eyes and dental work?

MR. PECKFORD: It varies all over.

MR. LUSH: Is it then, but we do get into it, social services in other areas in Canada?

MR. HARRIS: That is something we can follow up on, Mr. Minister. I say this because there are serious anomalies that occur. I have heard of cases of parents putting their children into foster care or temporary wardship or non-ward agreements for a period of a couple of months, because in foster homes they are entitled to get the dental work done that they are not otherwise entitled to get; they are entitled to a clothing allowance that they would not get if they were in the care of the person who is the actual parent, and a number of other services, all of a sudden the door is open to them when they are in foster care in a foster home, but when they are in the home of their natural parent, they are unable to get these same services from the Social Services Department.

There seems to be far too many areas within our social services policies where these anomalies exist in an unjust kind of way and I am going to ask the question that I asked last year and I think the year before as well, because you know, dealing with individual cases sometimes is very tricky, particularly when members do not have access to the policies that the department is in fact enforcing in particular areas, and I am going to ask whether the minister is prepared to make the policy manual of his department available to members of the House of Assembly?

MR. LUSH: I do not want to make a commitment here at this moment, because there might be things that, with my limited understanding of the situation, might not be immediately available to me, but I will undertake to look into it and I will get back to the member with my position.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

One of the organizations that has been cut back by half, and I wonder whether it is under review, is the Newfoundland Hearing Association, it may well be on the list under review, if it is, I would appreciate -

MR. LUSH: That is the Newfoundland Hearing Association? Yes, it is under review.

MR. HARRIS: That association does not get very much money, I think last year they got around $20,000 -

MR. LUSH: $22,000.

MR. HARRIS: $22,000, but they provide what appears to me to be a very valuable service to a number of individuals. They say there are about 35,000 individuals in the Province with hearing loss problems, and just to pass along one example which was given to me by Dr. Nora Browne, who was at the access breakfast last week which perhaps the minister was, and I know some of the other members here were, where an individual who was employed in a business environment, was being told by her employer that she was going to have to be laid off because she was not getting the telephone messages properly, she was unable to deal with customers and could not provide proper service.

After, almost the last minute as it were, she consulted with the hearing association, they went into the office system situation and talked to her, made four or five different changes, moved the photocopier out of an office because that was providing undue background noise, provided her with brighter lights so that she could see the people to whom she was talking and therefore hear, provide some device for the telephone that would help her to answer the telephone properly, do two or three little things like that to change the environment in which the person was working and save that person's job. That is just one example. With the leave of the committee, to just finish the story - one example of how the work of this association not only provides a very valuable service to an individual, but quite obviously keeps a productive person in the working environment and a taxpayer as opposed to a user of government services, so I encourage the minister in the review to keep that in mind. As I say that is one example but there are many, many others from this association and the others that are there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Ms. Verge.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

When does the minister propose having a draft new child welfare act? This has been worked on, from what we are told, for about ten years. John Efford on becoming minister four years ago promised to have a draft act before the House of Assembly that Fall, the Fall of 1989, and every time I ask it is in the works but it has never yet materialized.

MR. LUSH: I probably will say the same thing and the member then will come with the next question: why do we not do what she wants done now? Mr. Peckford and I have talked about that and again I can only say that things are suppose to be moving. How quickly, I do not know, because I have asked him so many things in the last little while that I do not remember the time limits on all of them.

MR. PECKFORD: We are ready to talk to you about that one right away.

MR. LUSH: He says he is ready to talk to me with this one right away.

MS. VERGE: That obviously is a prime candidate for a Legislation Review Committee so I would encourage the minister to try to get a draft in the hands of the committee over the Summer so we can have hearings and be ready to have the House of Assembly deal with it in the Fall sitting. What about the promised new Day Care Act? That was promised by the Premier in the 1989 election campaign. The minister may realize that there still is no provincial government regulation of care for children under two.

MR. LUSH: That, too, is in draft right now and that could be discussed as early as the Fall.

MS. VERGE: Okay. I am just dismayed having heard the deputy minister say that the federal government with Brighter Futures will be providing to organizations in Newfoundland and Labrador about $500,000 this year. Then I look to Page 325 of the Estimates 5.l.02 Day Care Services, and see that the Province is proposing to reduce what it spends on allowances and assistance by over $500,000 from what was spent last year, so it seems to me that young children and their families will be worse off with Brighter Futures providing less than what the Province is cutting. The Brighter Futures money is taking an awfully long time and it seems to me a disproportionate amount of bureaucratic activity is delaying whatever eventually will come. How can the minister justify this cut in day care allowance and assistance, grants and subsidies?

MR. LUSH: First of all coming back to the comment the member makes about Brighter Futures with respect to day care. We are not certain that day care is going to be an area that monies can be accessed from Brighter Futures. It is children at risk and we may be able to make a case for day care but it is not immediately obvious.

MS. VERGE: Well, in that case this cut is even worse. How can you justify cutting by one sixth what is provided for day care from $3 million to $2.5 million?

MR. LUSH: I would much rather that we had an increase of $600,000 but when we are into a time of restraint this particular area is going to cause us some difficulty. It is going to be quite a challenge to meet the requirements and to come up to the level of service that we had last year. We have to be looking for creative ways. This is the thing that concerns me, that we think that every service we offer to people has to be money. We are living in a time right throughout the world when - and particularly in Canada - when we live in these tough economic times, we are going to be looking at different ways of doing things, different approaches, and I hope that is going to be one of the great benefits that come out of this recession, that people in the jobs that we are doing - and we have some bright people, and we have some people with some fantastic ideas, and I am hopeful that out of this there are going to come strategies and new ideas and new approaches that are going to be able to deal with some of these things that we think we have to pour millions of dollars into. I am hopeful that as a result of some of those studies that we are not necessarily going to see money, money, money all the time.

Now I know that people do this sincerely - as sincere as I am - but I would venture to say that if we put down on paper tonight the hundreds of thousands of dollars that have come out of this discussion as a result of the question that we would be up to millions and millions of dollars here tonight. There is a limit to what we can afford in this small, poverty-stricken Province.

I think, as I have said again without belabouring the point, that I am hopeful that out of this economic recession is going to come new strategies, new ideas, new suggestions, new approaches for providing services to our people that are going to be very, very effective and very, very adequate, but they are not always going to entail that we have hundreds of thousands of dollars in them.

MS. VERGE: I would just like to say that I think it is very sad that the department, at a time like this, is spending more for youth corrections, is spending more for straight welfare, is spending less for employment opportunities and training, is spending less for daycare services for young children, is spending less for counselling services. If we spent a little more than the paltry amount allocated for beneficial educational and preventative services such as daycare, such as counselling services, and a little more employment and training, instead of more and more and more on straight welfare, involving people who want to work, are able to work, and are used to working, sitting home and simply passively receiving cheques, or spending more and more on young offenders, maybe if we spent more on daycare and community organizations and counselling there would not be quite as many young offenders.

How can the department expect to spend substantially less on employment and training for social assistance recipients this year compared to what was spent last year, and why would the government even want that? Why would you want more people, as I say, sitting home passively collecting welfare cheques when they are able to work and want to work?

MR. LUSH: The member will recall that last year the government, through a special warrant I believe, put $5 million into job creation. That is what puts that a little out of perspective right now, so their intentions this year were much the same as they were last year except for the fact that they decided that they were going to pump another $5 million into it. Maybe they are hoping, because again the government - it is not programs that they want to be into, these short-term programs. They would rather access the training programs under the Enhancement Employment Program, and the department has gone into that itself more in the training aspect, but I would not predict what the government will do come September, but that is the reason for the major change.

MS. VERGE: One of my big frustrations in trying to help people in the area I represent to become more self-sufficient and to get needed community work done is that for the last several years Social Services has not been planning ahead. For the last several years in the Fall, panic fashion, there is money for emergency employment, and your staff, who have an excellent record of administering community development projects in the western region, simply are not given the opportunity to plan and work with community organizations and businesses to mount worthwhile projects and have them well supervised. What happens is that, in the Fall when the weather is turning bad, in a rushed way, projects are slapped together, they are not well designed because there simply isn't time for that preparatory work and nobody is getting a good return from the investment.

Now if the government knows up front that it is going to end up spending $15 million this year instead of the $10 million that is in the Budget, if only you would say so now, your staff and people out around the Province would have a chance to plan and get a much better return for the money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is up Ms. Verge.

Now, Mr. Harris.

MS. VERGE: Could we have leave for the minister's response?

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave?

Mr. Minister.

MR. LUSH: Very quickly, I think again that we have all run into that particular complaint. Maybe we should call it something else but the very nature of the label that we have been attaching to it, emergency response, suggests that it is something that you do not do a lot of planning for, because the hope is, the wish is, that we do not have to do it, and come September, come October, I mean, unless we are all great economists I think we can be cynical about it and say nothing is going to change between now and September, now and October, who is going to know what is going to happen -

MS. VERGE: Maybe there will be more people on social assistance.

MR. LUSH: - the economy is going to turn around some time, and the Summer is the time and many of our people are going to go all over Canada looking for jobs. Now I hope they are going to be there, but some time they are going to be there and I do not know whether we are going to have a lot of lead time, I do not know if we are going to know by January and say this year there is going to be a lot of work on the mainland, so I think the very nature of that makes it a rather precarious situation but that does not, in the meantime, stop us from planning, and I think we are doing a little better job on that.

I think last year for example, we took, in some of the emergency response programs, applications that had been in the system rather than calling somebody and saying: look, whip up an application, we are going to give you some jobs, they took applications that were in the system. Hopefully, they will do the same thing this year, that there will not be knee-jerked reactions kind of thing, that the application will be into the system and that should correct the situation a little bit better and make the jobs a little more adequate.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Harris.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

Looking, Mr. Minister, at page 324, the appropriation 4.3.04 where there is a reduction in the appropriation for grants to agencies serving the physically disabled, and the amount of the reduction is $178,000 from what was actually spent last year. In fact it is probably a $178,000 reduction from what was spent last year, $198,000 from what was voted last year. But I see that the revenue that comes in is reduced by $123,000 on the federal side and the rest on the provincial side, there being only a $51,000 difference and I am just curious. Could the minister explain why that is, there is $178,000 reduction, $133,000 of that reduction comes from the federal. Has some of the programs been stopped or, what is it that causes that? Why are we not getting more revenue from the federal government?

MR. LUSH: I am going to defer on this one, Mr. Harris, to my official.

MR. PECKFORD: Federal revenue in this particular area and in other areas, lags behind the years in which it was incurred. Now we very often have adjustments to prior years' claims with the federal government and I think the discrepancies or the differences that we see there are the results of adjustments to prior years claims with the federal government.

MR. HARRIS: And I take it some of those would be under review as well, the consumer organization for the disabled and others.

MR. PECKFORD: A goodly portion of the agencies that we discussed earlier are in there, yes.

MR. HARRIS: Okay. While we were talking about finding money for various things the minister's comments caused me to have another look at the item under Administrative Support, vote 1.2.02, the $5 million that the department is finding this year for the computer project, in addition to the $3.6 million that was found last year for the computer project. How many years has this been going on? Are we going to be having $4 million or $5 million per year to get this system up and running? Are we getting our money's worth? It's a pretty expensive operation, by the sounds of it.

MR. PECKFORD: Yes, this is a fairly expensive operation; however, a very cost-effective one, we believe. The Department of Social Services is a very information intensive organization. Our use of technology in this area over the past several years has been quite minimal. Our intention here is to increase dramatically the use of information technology to capture the kind of information that is required, but more specifically, not only to manage the programs but to provide assistance to front line workers to relieve them from the paper work loads and the various other administrative processes which are bogging them down now and preventing them from having the kind of interaction with clients for which they're best suited.

Right now we're just closing a tender for 350 micro-computers which will go out into the offices this year and another 350 next year. So we will see a considerable expenditure for the next couple of years in this area.

MR. HARRIS: On another topic, Minister. Last year, through the estimates committee and the House afterwards, you may recall as Speaker dealing with legislation for the registration of social workers. One of the issues that we discussed last year at the estimates committee was the requirement of a BSW as the basic requirement for social workers and the various types of grandfathering schemes that might be put in place.

I just wonder if one of your officials can update the members of the Committee on what's happened in this field. I understand that there were a number of different categories of people who were in the field. There were some forty or more who had been hired under Mr. Efford's administration, particularly in Child Welfare, some of whom had degrees in social sciences, whether it be geography or psychology or whatever, but no social work training, and were in the field. These were being basically given an opportunity to upgrade or be replaced by a BSW. What are the numbers like now? Can someone tell us what the numbers of people in the social work category who are in the various situations, whether having a BSW, or having been replaced, or in the grandfathering system?

MR. LUSH: With respect to the legislation, again, I think we're getting very close to this, aren't we? That's almost a pat answer.

MR. HARRIS: The legislation's been passed.

MR. LUSH: I'm thinking about something else. I was thinking about the....

AN HON. MEMBER: The legislation's passed. The regulations (inaudible).

MR. LUSH: I think they're pretty close too, but (inaudible) the legislation I was thinking about, the organization, what is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Newfoundland Association of Social Workers.

MR. LUSH: Yes, the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers. Anyway, yes, that's done under the regulations. Again I'll defer to my staff with respect to the specifics of the question as to how many people are being hired because I wouldn't know that. I do know with respect to the procedure, and the requirement is that we're certainly asking for - putting down preference for people with a BSW, but I know even that comes through with our students, people working in Social Services, kind of thing. But with the general hiring, again I'll defer to Mr. Peckford.

MR. PECKFORD: That's correct, the legislation is passed. We've been working with the Newfoundland Association of Social Workers on the development of the regulations. That's practically complete now so that we will soon be in a position to discuss with the minister the proclamation of the act. We also in discussions on the regulations with the Association have discussed the question of the grandfathering and identifying of the staff who would require to be upgraded and make provision to give them an opportunity to upgrade. We are also carrying out similar discussions with the School of Social Work to see what arrangements could be made to enable those staff, who are now working with us who do not have a BSW, to be able to pick up the required courses that they have to to qualify for BSW. So, we are working fairly closely with both The School of Social Work and The Newfoundland Association of Social Workers to bring about as quickly as we can, the upgrading of those staff that need to be upgraded for a BSW.

MR. HARRIS: I was trying to ask a more specific question than that, I guess I failed, therefore I did not get a more specific answer. Perhaps I should have another review of the legislation because I thought it was already in effect in terms of the requirements of upgrading a seven year period and that sort of thing. Have the numbers changed as a result of that? The number that some of the people - for example, they were not in permanent positions, these individuals, have any of them chosen to go back to school and get their BSW's in the meantime?

MR. PECKFORD: The legislation is not proclaimed yet, so it is not in force yet. It has been passed but it is not proclaimed. Yes, there have been a number of our staff who have chosen to upgrade their qualifications to a BSW. Further, our hiring practices, notwithstanding the legislation not being proclaimed, is to hire staff with a BSW.

MR. HARRIS: Another subject, Minister, one of the areas that I have asked about in the past has to do with the rate of assistance provided to the single able-bodied - I guess is the unfortunate phrase that is used. I guess it is the people who are on social assistance for the reason only that they are unemployed I think is perhaps the more technical description of it. The rate that is provided to them is a maximum of eighty-eight dollars per month if you are living with relatives and a maximum of $129 per month if living on your own. That $129 is an amount that is supposed to cover all your requirements -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member's time has expired. I will put you on the list for later. Ms. Verge?

MS. VERGE: Youth corrections; there is about $10 million budgeted to be spent when you count the federal portion. Can the minister or the officials of the department, tell the Committee how many young offenders the department is dealing with in the run of a year, perhaps the numbers for the last couple of years and what is projected for this year? Has the number been about constant or has it changed over the last few years?

MR. LUSH: Unfortunately it is not constant. It has been rising somewhat and that is, I think, probably a reflection of our economic times as well but the number is going up.

MS. VERGE: Could the minister indicate more precisely the absolute number each year for the past two years and the rate of increase?

MR. LUSH: In Open Custody, I can give the member some numbers there. I cannot give her three years. In March of `91, in Open Custody, the numbers were seventy-eight. They are from March, year to year. In March `92 it was eighty-nine and March of `93 it was ninety-three.

MS. VERGE: How about closed custody?

MR. LUSH: Closed custody? Well we can get that one from another table.

We have fifty-five in 1990-'91. Then 1991-'92, seventy-five.

And right now about eighty.

MS. VERGE: About eighty?

MR. LUSH: Yes.

MS. VERGE: We are talking 160 or 170 young offenders -

MR. LUSH: Total.

MS. VERGE: - a year, and a spending of $10 million. It is a lot of money per offender. How much does it average out to?

MR. LUSH: Yes, $200 a day in secured custody.

MS. VERGE: If through preventative efforts, through a program such as Big Brothers/Big Sisters, we can keep just a few young people from committing crimes and getting into the system, obviously there will be major savings for the government in lots of ways.

Would the minister indicate, in terms of young offenders doing open custody time, how many are in foster homes and how many are in group homes? I understand those are the two possibilities - foster care and group homes?

MR. LUSH: In foster homes, again I can get the number. It is a little in excess of 500, I believe, just in foster homes.

MS. VERGE: I am talking about young offenders.

MR. LUSH: Oh, the young offenders? I am sorry.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are very few in foster homes.

MR. LUSH: Yes, there are very few. Most of them would be in the group homes, open custody, of which we have what right now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety-three.

MR. LUSH: Ninety-three, yes.

MS. VERGE: How many group homes do we have?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen.

MR. LUSH: Thirteen.

MS. VERGE: Thirteen?

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) co-op apartments - are they a part of that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: And the co-op apartments, they are the other ones?

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. LUSH: Okay.

MS. VERGE: A few years ago when I was Minister of Justice I remember being aware of the fact that sentencing patterns of judges varied by region, and in the western region judges were more inclined to sentence young offenders to open custody. Of course we do not have a secure custody facility in that part of the Province, and the group homes at the time in that region could not accommodate the numbers, so in several instances the young offenders were placed in foster care. I heard very positive reports from social workers and foster parents about the results and I am wondering if, for policy reasons, the department is making any effort to arrange for foster home placements for young offenders in lieu of group homes. It obviously would cost the government less money, but in some cases it may also have more beneficial effects for the young offender.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Peckford, maybe you'd like to make a comment on that, because there are a couple of programs I think that the member ought to know about here. So I think this might be the proper place to do it.

MR. PECKFORD: We are presently designing a program as a pilot project which we're calling Alternatives to Custody. Which will look at the foster home model as well as other models and look at the nature of supports in addition to the foster home which would be necessary to convince the legal system that we would have a viable option. We have some funding this year and we are currently designing the program to determine - and using the experiences from our staff, where we have used some foster care in the past - to bring about a structured system where we would have some confidence that the level of supports would be adequate to support the foster parent and support the individual in question.

One of the difficulties we've had - while we've had some very positive experiences with fostering young offenders, we have also had a high breakdown in the foster parent group, where because of in the past we have not been able to put in place the kind of adequate supports for the foster parents, as well as adequate assessment of the nature of the individual who we would find is a good candidate for fostering. Part of the Alternatives to Custody pilot that we're designing is an assessment tool to try to assess the individual to see who is a proper candidate for fostering and the nature of supports that would be needed.

MS. VERGE: Are the open custody group homes, the thirteen, fairly evenly spread across the Province?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes. We have them on the Burin Peninsula, in Labrador, and West and Central. Yes, I would think so.

MS. VERGE: The closed custody facilities I know are confined to the Avalon.

MR. PECKFORD: Just Whitbourne.

MS. VERGE: Just Whitbourne now. Is the new place opened?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes it is. It opened last September.

MS. VERGE: Okay.

I only have one more question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave.

MS. VERGE: The Wells government announced about three years ago a plan to build a small secure custody facility in Corner Brook. Is that alive?

MR. PECKFORD: There are no plans. We still have the idea of probably using satellite centres in Corner Brook and maybe Labrador. There are no plans to build them right now.

MS. VERGE: So the notion is alive but there's no money. When you say satellite, does that mean what was announced a couple of years ago?

MR. PECKFORD: Yes.

MS. VERGE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, before I recognise Mr. Harris, we're down now to the point within five minutes of using our three hours. As in previous meetings when we reached this stage we came to an agreement that we would either continue on and finish up very shortly, or we would adjourn at this point and the meeting will convene again tomorrow, in parliamentary terms. I leave it now to the decision of the Committee. I will call the heads if there's nobody else who wants to speak after Mr. Harris. Or can he finish up?

MR. HARRIS: I'd be happy with one round.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MS. VERGE: I'm finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're finished, you're finished, you're finished. Ten minutes, sir, you're on.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you. Minister, I want to just pick up on the issue of the single unemployed individuals. The amount involved: I don't think anybody would disagree with it being inadequate, although the Premier seemed to defend it in the House last year. These same individuals - I've dealt with a number of them, particularly young people, nineteen, twenty, twenty-one, twenty-two, who are in that category. They have no jobs. They have no UI, because they've never had a job to get UI. They're not in school; they have no prospects, and are living in what can only be described as situations where they are being exploited by boarding house mistresses or masters, as the case may be, and they have been very desperate. They have been coming to me complaining, and I have been trying to get some assistance for them, trying to get some jobs and that sort of thing.

One of the things that they always say is that they are told that they can go down to the Wiseman Centre, for example, if they do not like what they have, if they do not like the place they are living. The Wiseman Centre, I understand, operates on a per diem basis. Perhaps the minister can tell us what the per diem is that is paid to the Wiseman Centre to house an individual.

MR. LUSH: The Wiseman Centre, Mr. Peckford informs me, is the one that is under review. It has low rates and we are presently talking to them.

MR. HARRIS: The amount the department would have to pay the Wiseman Centre per diem for housing individuals. I do not know what it is. I am told it is $20 or $30.

MR. PECKFORD: I am not quite sure, Mr. Harris. I think it is around $15 a day right now, and we have just met with the officials from the Salvation Army and have agreed that we need to look at that. There were certain other aspects of their operation which were taken into account that previously they wished to discuss with us, so the whole funding arrangement surrounding that is now under way.

The officials from the Salvation Army were in to see me about a week-and-a-half ago, so we have agreed to - and they have written us since - so we are looking at that now.

MR. HARRIS: So the $15 a day that is there now is being reviewed with a view to increasing it. That would cost, to house one of these individuals for a month, $450, even at $15 a day, which you will be increasing, presumably, pending the completion of your review.

I am wondering, Mr. Minister, is there somewhere in between the cost of housing someone at the Wiseman Centre on a per diem basis and the amount that the government makes available to these individuals who are forced, therefore, to be in desperate straits? These are individuals living from hand-to-mouth. I would suspect that many of them are involved in illegal activities in order to maintain their existence, and they say to me, and they strike me as individuals who are forced into that circumstance by the desperation that they are facing.

The $129 per month is the maximum as well, and it strikes me that the department could be somewhat more creative in finding solutions, particularly in the area of housing, for these individuals.

Is the minister concerned about this? Are there programs? Are they looking into some sort of possibility of having apartments, or some kind of housing program, for individuals in those circumstances - some sort of co-operative apartments, which were suggested at one point in time for some of these individuals? Are there any programs of that nature being undertaken by the department, or would the minister be prepared to look at changing the rate for these single, unemployed individuals so they might be able to provide better accommodations or housing, or a better situation for themselves?

MR. LUSH: In answer to the first question, am I concerned? Yes. I am certainly concerned. Whether I am prepared to look at the rates? This is a big question. Again, it is a matter of the dollars and cents. We have already seen some very sensitive areas where we have some budget restraints, and it is going to be a real challenge to meet some of the budget requirements, the budget restraints. But we do have this group of people for whom I think all of us are concerned.

With respect to housing, I can't say that I'm aware of anything that's going on at the moment. It's something that I'll undertake to enquire into. There's no question that the rates are low. Probably, in this particular area, the lowest in Canada. Generally our rates in other areas are comparable to other areas of Canada, but this is one of the ones where we're down. I suppose it's a reflection again of our economy, and again a matter of priorities. Where do we place our priorities and what ought to be a level of income for able-bodied people, single people, in that particular predicament.

It's a big issue and one that ought to be studied. Maybe as the member said we can look into innovative ways and look into housing. It's something that I'm prepared to discuss with our officials, and to discuss the intensity of the problem here in Newfoundland. I know the hon. member when he talks about housing he's specifically talking about St. John's.

MR. HARRIS: I am in this particular case of constituents or individuals who have come to me. I know that the minister may have heard some activity recently at City Council level talking about particular housing circumstances in St. John's. Boarding houses where some of your clients are housed in conditions - whether they be housing conditions that are inappropriate, or social conditions within the houses that are at the very best inappropriate, and perhaps dangerous to neighbours and dangerous to people living in them.

We've had a couple of fires as the minister knows, but we also have very terrible conditions for those people to live in. Many of these are privately owned operations. The owners of them obtain a considerable amount of money from your department per unit, or per house. Is the minister prepared to have somebody look into this situation? Obviously it's a combination of certain policies working in certain ways and ending up with this mess. It's a serious situation, I say to the minister, and I wonder: does the minister have a way of addressing this problem, or is somebody already looking into it? When can we expect to hear some solutions?

MR. LUSH: Again, I understand that our officials are working with City Hall. I'll get a more precise picture of what's going on here, and some of the issues raised by the member I'll certainly raise with my officials and determine in a more detailed way what we're doing. If we're not doing what we should be doing, to determine how we can provide better service for that age level of people that the hon. member refers to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Harris, your time has expired, sir.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister, and members of the Committee. There's no one else who has indicated they want to speak. I'm going to ask the Clerk would she call the heads.

On motion, Department of Social Services, total heads, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we adjourn I would ask that someone make a motion that the minutes of our meeting of June 2 be approved.

On motion, minutes adopted as circulated.

MS. VERGE: The minutes of that meeting don't reflect the fact that we almost sank the Department of Justice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You almost won. You almost sank it. Anyway, before I adjourn I would like to thank the minister and his officials for coming. I think that this Committee has now achieved a first in recent years, since we've had the seasoned Members for St. John's East and Humber East. Never before has it gotten through the three hours, or the Committee stage, and passed all the heads at the regular sitting. I think this is an achievement in itself. I don't know if you can attribute it to the Chairman or not but modestly I'll say that.

Thank you very much.

MS. VERGE: You might as well take the credit.